[QUOTE=Bricker]
…I don’t think these procedures are wise or just. But they are not violative of the Constitution or the GC. As long as people stop claiming that they are, I’ll stop disputing those claims.
[/QUOTE]
Thats it? That’s all? These procedures may be wretched and unjust, but you will forthrightly defend the Bushiviks against charges that are of no particular consequence? Maybe a step above a purely semantic nitpick, but, really, why do you bother?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Thats it? That’s all? These procedures may be wretched and unjust, but you will forthrightly defend the Bushiviks against charges that are of no particular consequence? Maybe a step above a purely semantic nitpick, but, really, why do you bother?
[/QUOTE]
If you’re so convinced that it’s of “no consequence”, then focus your energies on getting people to quit bringing it up, since they seem to think it is. It seems absurd to spend so much time berated people who are correcting factual errors… unless of course your motive is to let those factual errors stand.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
…unless of course your motive is to let those factual errors stand.
[/QUOTE]
I beg your pardon?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
I beg your pardon?
[/QUOTE]
Let me rephrase that, **elucidator **style: Surely it isn’t your motive to let factual errors stand uncorrected, so we wouldn’t want people think that it might be. You know how people are-- always coming to false conclusions. Hence my advice that you focus your energies on the source of those errors, rather than on the correcting element.
Well, bless his heart, he means well.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Posting a list is supposed to prove that we are providing the detainees with the requisite hearing to determine their status.
I can see my off-handed comment about the gun is causing some problems. I was not suggesting there was a specific case of a guy being caught with a gun. I was responding to the comment that each one should be treated as a non-combatant
[/QUOTE]
Not quite. You were responding to this comment :
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Then they need to be treated as civilian non-combatants, absent a shred of fucking evidence that they are anything else.
[/QUOTE]
Presumably, a gun might be considered a shred of fucking evidence.
It appears that Bricker’s main reason for being in this thread is not to endorse or support the plans put forth by the Administration, but to stomp on and try to eliminate the sloppy use of the words “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” by the participants in this thread.
This is entirely consistent with the priorities Bricker has demonstrated throughout his membership in the SDMB. If we could see past that tree of consistency here, we would be less likely to miss the forest represented by the fact that he is in agreement with the thesis of the OP (well, except for the foam-flecked Bush bashing, but you can’t always have everything).
BTW, re: the thread title. I think we should get the wielder of the secret Flame of Arnor to stand in front of this piece of shit. Then it couldn’t pass.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
It appears that Bricker’s main reason for being in this thread is not to endorse or support the plans put forth by the Administration, but to stomp on and try to eliminate the sloppy use of the words “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” by the participants in this thread.
This is entirely consistent with the priorities Bricker has demonstrated throughout his membership in the SDMB. If we could see past that tree of consistency here, we would be less likely to miss the forest represented by the fact that he is in agreement with the thesis of the OP (well, except for the foam-flecked Bush bashing, but you can’t always have everything).
[/QUOTE]
Too bad your thesis doesn’t stand up to the simplist of factual checks. Let’s test it out on the first post by said poster:
Not many tress to see past, are there? Got any other hypotheses you’d like to test out?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
…But they are not violative of the Constitution or the GC. As long as people stop claiming that they are, I’ll stop disputing those claims.
[/QUOTE]
Contrast and compare is your friend.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Contrast and compare is your friend.
[/QUOTE]
How many times is it necessary to repeat one’s general agreement with OP? I know there were at least 2 more repetitions of what he said in the first post, even if they were brief. There is no confusion about the stance he was taking except in your attempt to distort that position with comments like:
When there was never any confidence expressed in the justice of that proposal, and in fact a no-confidence opinion was explicitly given multiple times.
Does the condemnation have to take the precise from you prescribe? Is it necessary to drop to one’s knees and admit, with all sincerity of heart, that one does love Big Brother after all?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
…Is it necessary to drop to one’s knees and admit, with all sincerity of heart, that one does love Big Brother after all?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, puhleeeeeze! Gimmee a break, John.
Perhaps we misunderstood, perhaps the zeal of posting misled us, we thought a serious critique of grave import was afoot, we just didn’t see that it was a stern defense of proper vocabulary. What, Safire’s dead, you guys are bucking for his job?
I’m not sure I’m following, John Mace. Am I to understand that you think I’m mistaken in my reading of Bricker’s motivation for being in the thread because his first post wasn’t about shooting down imprecise word usage?
Or am I mistaken in thinking Bricker doesn’t think the proposal is a piece of shit that should not be passed because
? Do you consider that to be an endorsement of the Administration’s proposal?
Or am I mistaken because
really is foam-flecked Bush bashing?
Help me out here; I must be particularly dense today.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
It appears that Bricker’s main reason for being in this thread is not to endorse or support the plans put forth by the Administration, but to stomp on and try to eliminate the sloppy use of the words “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” by the participants in this thread.
This is entirely consistent with the priorities Bricker has demonstrated throughout his membership in the SDMB. If we could see past that tree of consistency here, we would be less likely to miss the forest represented by the fact that he is in agreement with the thesis of the OP (well, except for the foam-flecked Bush bashing, but you can’t always have everything).
[/QUOTE]
This is a good point. Also, it’s important to note that Bricker is (nearly) always careful to distinguish between a statement of what the law presently is, as declared by constitution, statute, and case law, and his own opinions as to what it ought to be. Nowhere is this more evident than in discussions of substantive due process, a concept he considers repellent (for good reasons) but which he nonetheless sets forth as a principle enshrined in existing case law.
I would, however, submit to Bricker that, in the absence of final ruling in a SCOTUS opinion (or state high court where relevant), it’s common usage around here to say “X is unconstitutional” as shorthand for “The courts have not yet ruled with finality, but I believe it is clear that they will, or at least should, find that X is in violation of clause A of the Constitution.”
And while there have been a number of cases approaching and approximating the issue, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a formal and comprehensive statement as to the degree to which Constitutional guarantees apply to non-citizens who are in some way and for some reason in the custody of the United States.
There is therefore some wiggle room to allege that the treatment of Gitmo prisoners is in violation of constitutional principles. The terrible canard that “9/11 changed everything” does have a valid point – there is a not-yet-legally-defined category of person who is in fact acting inimicably to the United States (e.g., by participating in an Al Qaeda conspiracy to commit terrorism) who is neither an enemy combatant captured in war nor a criminal according to the “civil” criminal law but something in between.
In this connection, another distinguo made here, this one by John Mace, deserves reiteration: There are other reasons than a desire to torture for wanting to classify a given person taken into custody in Afghanistan as something other than a “prisoner of war” under the Geneva Conventions. The example John gave, that we may not legally require a prisoner of war to give evidence of ongoing terrorist conspiracies, nor reward him for doing so, is one excellent point. If we captured Osama’s chief strategic advisor today, and make him a prisoner of war, we would legally be unable to find out a damn thing from him.
Well, you’re the one who keeps popping in with this idea that constitutionality or adherence to the GC is of no consequence. You can’t set your own standards for what you consider important and then fault others for not having the same standards. Do you really expect a lawyer, of all people, to sit idly by when nonsense like that get posted on this board? Is it any surprise that I should think you want something well beyond condemnation when that condemnation has already been offered over and over again and yet you continue to nibble at whatever crumb of an argument you can latch onto instead of accepting a simple correction and moving on?
This board is full of very bright people, and most errors get quick attention so that they don’t sit there, glaring like an ugly wart on a site dedicated to “fighting ignorance”. If anything is “of no consequence” it’s that fact that this kind of stuff happens all the time here. It is not some secret insight into a person’s soul, fer crryin’ out loud. It’s just the way this site operates.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
The example John gave, that we may not legally require a prisoner of war to give evidence of ongoing terrorist conspiracies, nor reward him for doing so, is one excellent point. If we captured Osama’s chief strategic advisor today, and make him a prisoner of war, we would legally be unable to find out a damn thing from him.
[/QUOTE]
Just not so. The conventions may (and do) say that as a POW I am required to give up my name, rank, serial number and date of birth. That ties in with the function of the Red Cross in identifying prisoners – as a POW I am required to give that identifying information. I am not required to tell my captor anything else. My captor is not, however, required to limit my interrogation to the four magic facts. My captor can ask me anything he damn well wants. How my captor may induce me to reveal my mother’s maiden name or the name of a pet is somewhat restricted by the Conventions. The US may surely ask Osama’s operations officer anything it wants. The question you pose, Polycarp, is not whether he may be questioned but how his information may be used in a quasi-trial either of the Ops Officer or of some other person when you can’t or won’t have the guy actually testify. As with all judicial evidence the question becomes whether the guys statements are reliable information and whether, if reliable, its admission is consistent with basic principles of justice and the integrity of the court. The manner of inducement – red hot wires under the fingernails, water-boarding, access to a comfy chair– is certainly material to the determination, but don’t go running around screaming that the nation’s ability to defend itself is threatened by adherence to quaint rules of right behavior by civilized nations.
To return to my theme-of-the-week, the Judge Advocates General of all four services (men I do not know since my contemporaries are long since retired), men who have spent 25 years or so practicing law and administering the practice in a military setting, say that the court martial system with some tweaks and modifications can deal with the problem efficiently, fairly and in a manner consistent with accepted principles of justice. Yet, the administration has seen fit to ignore the advice and expertise of these men. Why might that be? Let me suggest that the Administration wants a procedure where there is better chance of achieving the right and desired outcome for these proceeding. A quasi-court martial with all its quaint rules about defined offenses, representation, confrontation, mandatory process to secure witnesses, disclosure of evidence and of exculpatory evidence and procedural and evidentiary rules lacks the element of certainty that I think our government seeks. In their eyes, how much better to proceed by Star Chamber methods.
From the beginning of this ill advised adventure I have said that we are going to sacrifice our nations treasure, blood and credibility for no good purpose. Now I see that my government is intent on the sacrifice of the nation’s integrity as well. We deserve better. This is not a narrow fight over semantics and legalities. It is a fight for the nation’s integrity. If we lose this fight then we are no better than our adversaries.
Out of the park. Note to self: buy more popcorn.